Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35402507›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2022

Where to From Here?

Robert Schleif, Manuel Espinosa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert SchleifDepartment of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MA, United States.
Manuel EspinosaDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas Margarita Salas, CSIC, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biological-biochemical community has been shocked and delighted by the remarkable progress that has recently been made on a problem that has consumed the attention, energy, and resources of many, if not most of the scientists in the field for the past 50 years. The problem has been to predict the tertiary structure of a protein merely from its amino acid sequence. Nature does it easily enough, but it has been an incredibly difficult problem, often considered intractable, for humankind. The breakthrough has come in the form of two computer-based approaches, AlphaFold2 and RoseTTAFold in conjunction with factors such as the use of vast computing power, the field of artificial intelligence, and the existence of huge protein sequence databases. The advancement of these tools depended upon and was stimulated by the last 50 years of development of smaller and smaller and more and more powerful electronics components, mainly processors and memory. Along with the problem of protein folding, determining the function or mechanism of action of proteins has similarly limped along as did protein folding until the recent breakthroughs. Perhaps AlphaFold2 and RoseTTAFold can substantially aid in protein mechanistic studies. Now it is not completely insane to consider what might be the next grand challenge in biochemistry-biology. We offer several possibilities.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebiocomputingdeep learningprediction of protein structuresprotein structure and function

Identifiers

PMID35402507
PMCPMC8990317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.